Sunday School

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

Zero gun violence is not the goal. Reducing the amount of gun violence is the goal. If one instituted an efficient and convenient public transportation system taking half the cars off the road, road deaths would go down somewhat proportionally.

Funny, you did not allow such nuance with the pro-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms position earlier.

[_Robert_]

Joe Goebbels and company had themselves some useful martyrs back in 1930s Germany. Maybe we will repurpose 9/11 as MAGA martyr day.

I see MAGA farmers are crying for govt bailouts again as they are burning their Chinese soybeans and corn crops. What a bunch of pansy socialists.

I doubt Trump has the health to finish his term. Then we will  get a real christian nationalist in charge.

Yeah, single issue voters really do have a great view of the insides of their rectums.

[TheEncogitationer]

Robert,

Joe Goebbels and company had themselves some useful martyrs back in 1930s Germany. Maybe we will repurpose 9/11 as MAGA martyr day.

Since Antisemites, Antizionists, and Holocaust Revisionists were praising Charlie Kirk’s murder, I doubt that Joe Goebbels and company would have considered Kirk a martyr. See Armin Navabi’s video from my other thread on Charlie Kirk.

I see MAGA farmers are crying for govt bailouts again as they are burning their Chinese soybeans and corn crops. What a bunch of pansy socialists.

Careful there. Although you are correct here, the Devotees of St. Luigi Mangioni and Mullah Zohran Mamdani might target people who use “socialist” as a derogatory term.

I doubt Trump has the health to finish his term. Then we will get a real christian nationalist in charge.

Yeah, single issue voters really do have a great view of the insides of their rectums.

MAGA and Anti-MAGA are single issues as well. A more important one is having the right to speak without getting physically threatened or murdered. I’m going with that more important issue right now, no matter how lame some of Charlie Kirk’s arguments were and even if he never conceded to be wrong. Any of us could be next.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling

[_Robert_]

Since Antisemites, Antizionists, and Holocaust Revisionists were praising Charlie Kirk’s murder, I doubt that Joe Goebbels and company would have considered Kirk a martyr. See Armin Navabi’s video from my other thread on Charlie Kirk.

You completely missed the point there enco. I am saying that political martyry’s are a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. Flags at half staff FFS.

Careful there. Although you are correct here, the Devotees of St. Luigi Mangioni and Mullah Zohran Mamdani might target people who use “socialist” as a derogatory term.

It is is an endless source of poetic justice to have the red states suffer the most by their own christian nationalist agenda. They are glad to self-inflict misery as long as the believe they own the libs. However, they never have a problem accepting subsidies and bailouts. They voted to end USAID, who purchased U.S.-grown surplus crops, primarily through programs like Food for Peace, to address global hunger, providing a stable market for American farmers.

MAGA and Anti-MAGA are single issues as well.

Guns, abortion, borders, church and state, GAZA, and trans are the single issues that caused otherwise centered voters to elect the orange Mussolini.  As went Italy, so will go the USA.

My buddy is a liberal who loves shooting his guns. Thinks the dems are gonna take his target rifles. Voted for Tangerine Idi Amin. Then he lost his research job. Now he is kicking himself.

Democracy dies when voters lose the plot. Democracies have a long history of voting themselves out of a democracy.

[Unseen]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Unseen,

Zero gun violence is not the goal. Reducing the amount of gun violence is the goal. If one instituted an efficient and convenient public transportation system taking half the cars off the road, road deaths would go down somewhat proportionally.

Funny, you did not allow such nuance with the pro-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms position earlier.

What do you think my position is/was?

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

What do you think my position is/was?

I’m sure it’s a moving goal post, since you’re not holding yourself to the standard you held with Charlie Kirk’s position.

[TheEncogitationer]

Robert,

It is is an endless source of poetic justice to have the red states suffer the most by their own christian nationalist agenda. They are glad to self-inflict misery as long as the believe they own the libs. However, they never have a problem accepting subsidies and bailouts. They voted to end USAID, who purchased U.S.-grown surplus crops, primarily through programs like Food for Peace, to address global hunger, providing a stable market for American farmers.

It’s not like USAID is the only market for farmers’ products. And it’s not like farmers can’t find new uses for their products. (“Everybody Loves Bob Evans!™”) And since, as I had pointed it out earlier, proceeds from USAID went to Hamas and their allies in the UN, it’s not like USAID was the “soft power” everybody claims it was. It was just soft-headedness.

Whatever you’re going on about martyrs, farmers are not it.

And be careful what you may wish for, because J.D. Vance is next in line and he doesn’t look any more promising than The Donald.

The best anybody can do is try to keep it scraped off of your boots.

[_Robert_]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Robert,

It is is an endless source of poetic justice to have the red states suffer the most by their own christian nationalist agenda. They are glad to self-inflict misery as long as the believe they own the libs. However, they never have a problem accepting subsidies and bailouts. They voted to end USAID, who purchased U.S.-grown surplus crops, primarily through programs like Food for Peace, to address global hunger, providing a stable market for American farmers.

It’s not like USAID is the only market for farmers’ products. And it’s not like farmers can’t find new uses for their products. (“Everybody Loves Bob Evans!™”) And since, as I had pointed it out earlier, proceeds from USAID went to Hamas and their allies in the UN, it’s not like USAID was the “soft power” everybody claims it was. It was just soft-headedness. Whatever you’re going on about martyrs, farmers are not it. And be careful what you may wish for, because J.D. Vance is next in line and he doesn’t look any more promising than The Donald. The best anybody can do is try to keep it scraped off of your boots.

OK, I did I say USAID is the only market or did I say it was buying their surplus? Their main buyer was China. That market dried up. Can you figure out why?

Proceeds from USAID did not go to HAMAS. Concerns are that HAMAS steals the food. And like all things in the fog of war, the amounts are not definitive.

Oh, and exactly what did I write that makes you think that JD Vance is preferable?

Perhaps you should change your handle to king of the MAGA strawmen.

[TheEncogitationer]

Robert,

OK, I did I say USAID is the only market or did I say it was buying their surplus? Their main buyer was China. That market dried up. Can you figure out why?

You were making out like it was a disaster for farmers if USAID was abolished.

And while it is true that Trump’s tariffs, which I’ve never supported, have messed up global markets, there are still plenty of people in the U.S. who could use cheap, plentiful fruits and vegetables. Bright farmers would switch gears and sell more to domestic markets and cut their losses.

Proceeds from USAID did not go to HAMAS. Concerns are that HAMAS steals the food. And like all things in the fog of war, the amounts are not definitive.

Not true about USAID:

Sam Westrop: How USAID Helps Finance Islamist Terror
$164 Million of Taxpayer Funds Have Gone to Radical Islamist Groups, Including $122 Million to Organizations Aligned with Terrorist Organizations
March 11, 2025
Marilyn Stern
https://www.meforum.org/podcasts/sam-westrop-how-usaid-helps-finance-islamist-terror

And here is the Middle East Forum article I linked in a past post:

Terror Finance at the State Department and USAID
MEF research finds that the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development have provided hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations involved with designated terrorist organizations.
February 1, 2025Sam Westrop
https://www.meforum.org/fwi/fwi-research/terror-finance-at-the-state-department-and-usaid

Oh, and exactly what did I write that makes you think that JD Vance is preferable?

I didn’t say that. I was just reminding you of who was next in line.

Perhaps you should change your handle to king of the MAGA strawmen.

No Strawmen here. Just pointing out that there is a world beyond USAID and MAGA.

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by TheEncogitationer. Reason: Added link

[Unseen]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Unseen,

What do you think my position is/was?

I’m sure it’s a moving goal post, since you’re not holding yourself to the standard you held with Charlie Kirk’s position.

You’re always referring to something offscreen, Enco.

Something I said (not quoted), something I believe (no evidence). It’s kinda hard to respond to vapor.

But that’s kinda the intent (I suspect).

• This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Unseen.

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

You quoted this about Charlie Kirk’s position on gun control:

“I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” — Charlie Kirk

Well, I think we can feel a little bit more secure now, can’t we?

Yet your own position is that the object of the gun control you support is not to stop all killings by guns.

Zero gun violence is not the goal. Reducing the amount of gun violence is the goal. If one instituted an efficient and convenient public transportation system taking half the cars off the road, road deaths would go down somewhat proportionally.

A distinction without difference, since people die either way. Yet you present your position as somehow more securing.

Again, you’re moving the goalpost.

All quoted. All extant. All found in evidence.

The real argument, of course, is that guns in the hands of those seeking peace even the odds against the aggressor.

[Unseen]

@Enco

The only explicit position of mine you quoted was “Zero gun violence is not the goal. Reducing the amount of gun violence is the goal.”

The point of that quote was only to note the irony that his tough guy, unempatheric approach brushed aside the human cost of a country swimming in guns. Lucky for him he was shot dead and not his wife or one of his children. I’m trying to imagine him defending his position that some deaths, like his wife or child, are okay as long as people get to have any old gun they want whenever they want one.

A distinction without difference, since people die either way. Yet you present your position as somehow more securing.

That implies that gun control is worthwhile only if It totally eliminates gun deaths, not just reduces them. Is that your goalpost? So don’t even try?

Maybe reasonable restrictions on guns wouldn’t have kept a gun out of this shooter’s hands, but surely, as with my examples involving taking cars off the road, gun deaths would have to go down. Refer to my examples of reducing cars on the road.

My arguments are rhetorical and philosophical because I recognize the practical and political impossibility of a program to confiscate or even encourage willing surrender of firearms.

My position is as stated: Zero gun violence is not the goal. Reducing the amount of gun violence is the goal.

Keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, anyone who’s used one in a crime, the mentally ill, etc., tied with extremely high penalties are imperfect steps but maybe they are a small price to pay to bring those stats down.

 

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

Lucky for him he was shot dead and not his wife or one of his children. I’m trying to imagine him defending his position that some deaths, like his wife or child, are okay as long as people get to have any old gun they want whenever they want one.

You’re saying Charlie Kirk was lucky to get shot and killed???

You might have just outdone all the crap you’ve said since the Ruuso-Ukraine War and the Gaza-Israeli War.

[Unseen]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

You’re saying Charlie Kirk was lucky to get shot and killed???

You might have just outdone all the crap you’ve said since the Ruuso-Ukraine War and the Gaza-Israeli War.

Sure. He’s the one who doesn’t see our astronomical gun death problem as even a problem, because it’s basically a kind of “cost of doing business” if you want virtually no control over who gets to have them.

I’m on the right side of history, I feel, on Gaza. As for the war in Ukraine, is it now a sin to see Russia as the aggressor and the Ukrainian defense of their nation as admirable?

 

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

Sure. He’s the one who doesn’t see our astronomical gun death problem as even a problem, because it’s basically a kind of “cost of doing business” if you want virtually no control over who gets to have them.

Still, “Lucky”??? Where’s the “luck” in getting shot and killed???

I’m on the right side of history, I feel, on Gaza.

Feelz is not an argument.

As for the war in Ukraine, is it now a sin to see Russia as the aggressor and the Ukrainian defense of their nation as admirable?

It is not a sin, but where did you ever make that proclamation when the Russo-Ukrainian War started?

[Author]

Posts